This paper asks to what extent Suriname's consociational democracy still rests on its historically shaped meta-ideology of ethnic essentialism. Based on ethnographic data of the country's national elections in 2010, I suggest that the ‘ethnic taboo’ of ethnic mobilization by politicians was present to a certain extent. However, this taboo was challenged by the nationalist turn of Desi Bouterse's National Democratic Party. Furthermore, when considering voting behaviour and that of ethnically mixed Doglas in particular, we see that Surinamese politics is more complex. I will argue that while we have been thinking about Surinamese politics as being on a par with ethnic groupings, these 2010 elections were not simply about ethnicity. Ethnicity may have informed but did not fully explain people's political choices, because people are too complex to be captured in an exclusively ethnic category, and because the Surinamese political system is too complex to maintain clear ethnic categories.